Republican and Conservative political analysis and commentary

Political Radar reports on foreign policy gaffes by Barack Obama yesterday in Missouri:

"We don't have enough capacity right now to deal with it -- and it's not just the troops," Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic.

"We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.

The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.

Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that's Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it's any of a half dozen other languages -- including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.

No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another.

"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.

"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.

Reed Galen has a must read piece on RealClearPolitics that examines the personality traits shared by President Bush and Barack Obama and why it wins elections.

Some excerpts:

Ideologically speaking, Barack Obama and George Bush could hardly be more different. Theirs is a dichotomy of Democratic big-government, dovish liberalism and Republican low-tax, free market, hawkish conservatism. But their personalities, when beliefs are removed, are not terribly different to the outside observer. Both shine in tightly-controlled, set-piece environments where the rules of engagement are based on their comfort-level. Although their speaking styles are clearly divergent, their charisma is a defining quality; turning arenas full of people into adoring fans with a turn-of-phrase, wink or thumbs up.

Despite their personal magnetism, though, they are also both clearly uncomfortable in more dynamic situations. Barack Obama in front of a teleprompter and well-screened crowd is a far different candidate than the Barack Obama dealing with Charlie Gibson asking pointed questions during a debate. Obama's reaction to that particular event also points to another trait he shares with the White House's current occupant: Neither reacts well to criticism from quarters they believe unworthy to bestow it. Additionally, Obama's infrequent media availabilities and rare trips to the press cabin of his campaign plane tell us we should expect the same type of minimalist dealings with the fourth estate under a President Obama as we have had under President Bush.

TIME has a good piece that outlines the various strategies the McCain campaign will use to define Barack Obama. While we hesitate to call Obama the Democratic nominee as Hillary Clinton is poised for a big win in the West Virginia primary tonight; the concerns about the Charlatan are still valid whether or not he makes it to the general election.

Some excerpts:

Paint Obama as a False Messiah
At an Alexandria Holiday Inn, McCain offered these words: "I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need." The code was not hard to break. McCain was calling out Obama as an unfulfilled prophet, built up on lofty rhetoric and personal charisma. McCain's advisors have been hammering the theme ever since, privately speaking skeptically of Obama's big crowds and "Yes We Can" ritual chants. "The lofty rhetoric," said Steve Schmidt, McCain's message man, on a recent flight. "It's nonsense." 

Work, Woo and Win the Referees
McCain's willingness to parry and thrust with the press is already the stuff of campaign legend. And if the candidate has his way, the legend will only grow. "He is the best earned media candidate I think in history," Rick Davis, the campaign manager, recently told The New York Times. "And so we will try to use that advantage." In recent weeks, the campaign has relaunched what advisers call the 'Straight Talk Express,' a time when groups of three or four reporters head to the front of the plane, or the back of the bus, for open-ended interviews. McCain's staff thinks its worth the risk, that by earning the understanding and admiration of reporters they can make Obama seem distant by comparison. 

Meet With the People, and Force Obama to Follow
The second part of McCain's earned media strategy is his people strategy. Some of McCain's best moments on the trail come in the uncontrolled give and take with a crowd. "The town hall meeting is John's best format," says Mark McKinnon, a media adviser for McCain. "He's a natural campaigner up close with the public." McCain has so far reveled in free-form forums, taking questions in places historically hostile to Republicans, like New Orleans. The campaign has vowed to continue the same format as much as possible going forward. McCain's aides even hope to bring Obama out of his stadium events and put him on the same level. McKinnon has suggested joint appearances by Obama and McCain with questions from the audience and limited moderation. Obama has said he is open to the idea.

John McCain appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart where he received a tepid reception.

McCain did well in the interview and his performance will go a long way in defining his image among young people who are generally uninformed (i.e., get their news from the Daily Show).

Stewart is also quite out of touch with the real world and demonstrates the liberal way of looking at the world. He suggests Islamic extremists use President Bush as a recruiting tool - and then implies that that is a negative. Stewart has obviously never studied the Middle East and Islamic extremism further than news reports and liberal talking points, nor does he have a firm grasp of how politics/recruitment works.

Islamic extremists are able to recruit people to their cause largely because of internal factors. Many potential recruits live in abject poverty under opressive governments. They turn to Islamic extremism because it offers food, a place to live, hope for the future, and something to believe in.

The New Republic has a piece today that reveals just what kind of damage has been done to Obama in the primary:

Ideology: In the Iowa Caucus, Obama defeated Clinton among "moderate" voters by 33 to 31 percent and barely lost "conservatives" by 22 to 21 percent. He was perceived as a middle-of-the-road candidate or, even better, as standing above ideology. But he increasingly is seen as the "liberal" or even "very liberal" candidate. In Indiana, he bested Clinton among liberals 55 to 45 percent but lost moderates by 53 to 46 percent and conservatives by 65 to 35 percent. He can't carry that political image into the fall and hope to defeat McCain. In most of the swing states that he would need to win, liberals occupy a much smaller niche than they in the Democratic primary. Moderates are the key. They make up 45 percent of the electorate in Virginia and 43 percent in Colorado--two states that the Obama campaign thinks it could win.

Forcefulness: In the 2004 election, voters repeatedly expressed their preference for a "strong leader," but Obama has yet to establish himself in this respect. He is regularly judged more "honest and trustworthy" than Clinton, but those qualities have proved less important to choosing a president. In Indiana, voters thought Clinton more qualified to be commander in chief by 54 to 43 percent. Nine percent of Obama voters acknowledged that Clinton was "more qualified to be commander in chief." In North Carolina, eleven percent of Obama voters preferred Clinton. Obama appears to be somewhat effete, which will, unless remedied, cause him difficulty against McCain in the fall, particularly among white males.

From the desk of John McCain:

There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their will through judicial fiat.

If you want judges who will clearly and completely adhere to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.

I am proud to have played a role in the appointment and confirmation of two great Supreme Court justices - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito I need your support now so that as your president I can nominate judges like Justices Roberts and Alito. Judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust. Judges who take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives. Judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Earlier this morning, in remarks at Wake Forest University, John McCain spelled out the positions of his opponents:

For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -- and I quote -- should share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." 

These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -- come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it -- and they see it only in each other.

While judges have taken a back seat in the Presidential race thus far, it will become an issue in the general election. Fundamental questions such as the role of the federal government, the right to self-defense, and the right to life will be at stake.

If a Democrat gets elected, Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be the first ones to step down from the bench allowing other activist judges to take their place. 

The Obama campaign is up with a classic negative that feels more like a general election ad:

Question to the peanut gallery: Which one looks more like "typical Washington"?